I don’t think you know what a debate is. It is generally regarded that murdering people for pleasure is wrong, and that people who disagree and think it is okay to murder and torture people for pleasure are regarded as mentally ill. Now, it wouldn’t be acceptable to seriously debate this topic as it has no redeeming value to add to the discussion. I see no reason why that shouldn’t be extended to people who aren’t mentally ill, yet advocate positions that cause needless suffering by depriving people of their rights and human dignity for no other reason than false beliefs, superstition, and bigotry.

LOL

I did not attack your intellect; I attacked your understanding of the issue of human rights. If you admire John Yoo or anyone who worked to allow Americans to torture our enemies, there are very few scholars in the area of human rights who would allow that you have any understanding of the issue at all. I am offended that a young gay law student is so indifferent to the suffering of others. I am offended that anyone could listen to Thio’s speech and say that there is probably more to her argument, as you do here.

No, that’s not what I was saying. Schlafly’s views on woman are popularly outdated even for a conservative school like mine. The vast majority of students and faculty at my school, regardless of their political affiliation, were not in agreement with her thoughts that women belong in the kitchen. So in a sense, our academic views were in accordance with a liberal school’s views, at least on that topic. But to add one more example of what I mean (since you had difficulty with the first), we had a panel discussion regarding gay marriage at our school. As I said earlier, our school is generally anti-gay marriage. However, the presenters included Jonathan Rausch, Dale Carpenter and Andrew Sullivan who obviously don’t follow the conservative, Catholic perspective on marriage. The conservative side included Lynn Wardle and Maggie Gallagher. It was a great symposium that lasted several days with great debate. Our school did not withhold invitations from the pro-gay marriage speakers because we are a conservative Catholic school. In addition, one of our professors is a huge advocate for unrestricted abortion rights and has written much scholarly material on the issue.

As for the preceding comment #103 . . . . You can say whatever you want when you’re hot enough.

As for Tank’s comment, see, I would probably disagree with you there. I do think there are topics and issues that spark furious debate and, of course, create unrest. However, I personally believe that such consequences are outweighed by the benefit of wide info dissemination and knowledge of different views. Of course, as long as their arguments are logical. Obviously this woman’s “gay sex=crime because gays are rich” argument is bad. But I don’t think that was what NYU was bringing her over for. However, I don’t think we should hold her too closely to that statement. I doubt NYU’s faculty board would find that legitimate debating material. There is probably more to her argument is all I’m saying.

Landon, I don’t think that’s fair. Of course I understand human rights and their importance. I am a young gay man myself who is a major proponent of equality for gays and lesbians. I am actually quite offended by what you said and think personal attacks regarding my intellect are cruel at this point. ou have no reason to doubt my credibility and intellectual capabilities simply because I disagree with you. Human rights can be debated, should be debated, and have been furiously debated. Further, she’s teaching Human Rights LAW. Of course her opinions will probably enter the classroom at some point. But most law professors don’t teach solely their viewpoints. It’s the reason why law schools follow socratic teaching methods. Legal teaching standards would not allow her to come into the classroom and gay bash.

Have no fear.

It’s not my desire to lessen the availability of either goats or children for you to have sex with.

I enjoy having sex with an adult male, so the field is clear for you to indulge yourself in your wildest sexual fantasies and desires.

Your God has no problem with goat or child fuckers…as long as they are straight.

I say, go for it! ;o)

Confucius

By the way, is it true Singapore used to dictate hair length for men?

If you dont like same sex marriage, then don’t marry someone of the same sex – Wanda Sykes

Do homosexuals hang out on christians sites trying to turn them down the dark site? Do homosexuals stand outside churches, christian funerals, or secular public spaces loudly condeming all and sundry who are not homosexual? Do homosexuals in political power actively put up laws to limit the freedoms of heterosexuals? Or to criminalise the behaviours around heterosexuality?

A great line from an American comedian (I forget who) “If you dont like same sex marriage, not marry someone of the same sex” If you find homosexuality yucky, stay away from homosexuals.

Unless of course, the whole point is about forcing your hatred and anger down everyone’s throat. To try and force everyone to act in the way you see fit.

anti-christian opinion = fair comment
anti-homosexual opinion = hate speech

That’s an EXCELLENT point.

Christians are a profoundly persecuted minority in America with little political power.

After the State of California recently overturned the right of Christianity to be considered a “religion” with Prop 88, this really came into focus clearly. But that was just the latest in a long line of anti-Christian oppressive laws, where non-Christians and atheists used the law to beat down Christians.

Take the 1996 Defense of Religion Act, for instance, which stated that one state did not have to recognize another state’s non-profit status for Christians’ so-called “churches,” and which mandated that the federal government permanently exclude Christian churches from federal programs for religion, including nonprofit status.

There was also the 1993 Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law, which maintained the ban on Christians in the military. Noting that Christian beliefs about death and hell demoralize the fighting forces of America who are supposed to be focused on killing, the government banned open Christianity in the armed forces. Many army personnel expressed alarm at the thought of sharing close quarters with someone who believes in “drinking the blood and eating the flesh” of a 2,000 year old Jewish carpenter. Thousands of Christians have been dismissed from the armed forces as a result.

Let’s not forget the epidemic of Christian-bashing. The “Christ panic defense” remains an issue — often, individuals who murder Christians have gotten out of murder charges simply by claiming that the Christian tried to convert them, inducing uncontrollable disgust leading to violence.

And police regularly kick down the doors of churches and arrest churchgoers during “holy days.” In Fort Worth last month, there was a Baptist Church raided by the Texas Alcohol Commission and local police, who heard that since it was having wine as part of a religious ceremony, decided to come in and beat up on the churchgoers. One of them was so severely beaten he has a clot in his brain that threatens his life and health.

These ongoing efforts to suppress Christians’ civil rights are a stain on this great nation. youcanthandlethetruth makes an excellent, valid point.

You’re the one who needs sympathy. Pitying a person is to put them down and make yourself better than them. Get an education.

I don’t travel to oppressive cuntries. That’s exactly my point too with two-faced homophobes. Love the person, not the act nonsense. Just be a good little fag, spend your money and shut the f*ck up as I tell you how it is little fag.
As for ego, well it’s twats like you that prove again that you want us fags to stay quiet and hide in our closets and be happy to be able to be allowed to coexist with your majesty.
Ego is part of a complete person. But in oppressive places, it is expected to be checked at the door.
Thanks again for confirming the truth.
Why don’t you take your confused self and stay there then and have tea with the “professor” and laugh at us silly fags.

you have my sympathy, so how about a little suggestion. why don’t you take a trip down to Singapore for a nice quiet break? Just don’t forget to leave that chewing gum at home, and check your ego at the door.

You made it personal. You’re the hater. Don’t paint that aspersion on me.
Remember, you stated my position as that of a sore loser, which makes no sense. You still haven’t a clue what irony means EITHER. As for “tone”, tone can be interpreted in any way in the written form. Even “f*ck you” in the right circumstances can be lovely, sweet and gentle.
The old gag of “my best friend is a such-and-such” is one of the oldest subliminal bigot defenses. Don’t resort to it, it exposes more of your true colors. Hear yourself. “If my best friend is gay, well, how can I be homophobic?” Your lovely “professor” claims the same nonsense. “Because at one time in my life I experimented with lesbianism, how can I hate gays?” That is baloney. Some of the most homophobic people can also be gay themselves (Ted Haggard, Larry Craig).So the argument merits very little logical or actual weight.
I also appreciate highly how when there isn’t an actual argument on your part anymore(you did agree that I was factual), that you spin the coin a new way. It’s not about a list of facts it’s about emotions. Bullshit! Now you subliminally accuse me of something that is extremely untrue. Misogyny. I don’t begrudge the “professor” of her opinions, in so far as that she keeps them to herself. If she used her position in parliament, as she did, to hurt other’s civil rights, which she did, then I can bitch and moan about it. I have no intention other than to civilly protest the bigot. Violence begets nothing and the claims of violence the “professor” alleges is the freedom of speech we enjoy in this country. Spouting an opinion that she is a bigot is not misogynistic.
So, live a little. You’re young. Don’t espouse how I should feel until you’ve been harrased, belittled and denied opportunities despite having the same or better qualifications of those that are promoted before you for many many years. When you’ve been denied simple dignities as respect of one’s self as long as I have and many others, anger shouldn’t be a surprise. You’d be angry too if you were denied, like in many parts of the world, an education just because you were born female.
Singapore was never an issue. It was one you made up. All I stated was it isn’t a surprise that someone who is a product of a country historically as repressive as that one to come to her stance.
So chill out. Eat some pussy and leave arguments for the grown-ups.

well said.

however, what i was commenting on was more the tone you used to approach this issue, and not at all your facts. Yepp you got all your facts right, but so what? Comments are used not only to cite facts but to also represent your feelings, and i think i was right on the money on how you feel towards her as a person, and how you then grouped singapore together with her. You certianly have your opinions, but when one mixes them with facts, as you did, I don’t think that makes for a lucid argument.

I think most people in singapore have got a “fair shake”, however you put it. My best guy friend is gay, and one of my closest girl friends is a lesbian, and i was one too. Do i feel oppressed? A little. Do we lament against the government, which, incidently, also banned chewing gum? Logic please? Tell me that wasn’t a poor attempt to cast a poor light on Singapore.

On the contrary, we express ourselves openly, are well educated, have got decent jobs (well i’m still in college but she does) and are doing dandy where we are. We went to top junior colleges, no ostracizing took place. So what have you got to say about that?

The irony, which you unfortunately seemed to have missed it your fit of anger, was how i imitated Thio’s letter at the end.
I am not a second class citizen and it’s your problem that you feel that I am.

“I am not a second class citizen and it’s your problem that you feel that I am.” — when did i ever imply this?

and “f&ck you Michelle Lee”? now, someone’s getting a little personal.

don’t be a hater.

Fuck him.

I have too much respect for my dick to do that! ;o)

[sorry folks, cocktails before dinner have made me just sick enough of this prick that I resort to ad hominem attacks]

[on 2nd thought, I take that apology back. Fuck him.]

:)

I think, actually, that the official position taken by the gay student group that originally brought Thio’s appointment to general attention was exactly what you suggest. Again, it would be helpful to read the stories before writing about them.

Thio _was_ asked to lecture on human rights, unlike Ahmadinajad. That means that those of us who believe people like me are not inferior to people like you see an additional problem here. I see in Thio an avowed and effective enemy of human rights. You think gay people deserve to be treated as less than human, so you do not see her comments about us as problematic. Imagine, though, that we deserved to be treated as well as you.

And changing the subject when caught in an untenable position does not make you look any smarter.

Schlukitz, it’s not nice to use words as hard as “disingenuous” when writing about someone as intellectually incapacitated as our little friend, but, otherwise– yeah.

He said there were no homosexuals in Iran.

And of course, total idiot that you are, you believe him, I’m sure.

youcanthandlethetruth is simply a disingenuous liar.

Bible-thmpers like he and Butty-Barb just like to stir-up shit.

I never said Ahmadinajad lectured on Human Rights I said he was allowed to speak at Columbia last year.

He said there were no homosexuals in Iran.

Who will you want to censor next? The “Gay Studies” professor?

So much for tolerance, you hateful homosexuals don’t seem to know the meaning of the word!

But the topic you are supposedly commenting on is someone who argued successfully for keeping laws against gay sex. Do you understand that you are not an effective advocate for your side when you writes in the comments of an article about someone who advocates treating homosexuals as criminals that “no one” is saying that.

Who in the United States invited Ahmadinajad to lecture on human rights? I missed that story. . .

Even Ahmadinajad got to speak in the US!

However some people on here openly advocating killing Christians and hoping that old people will die.

“Nobody is advocating treating homosexuals like criminals”

Li-Ann Thio is, successfully. You really don’t read the stories you comment on!

Nobody is advocating treating homosexuals like criminals, but why shouldn’t you take criticism like any other minority special interest group?

Since when did homosexuals have a monopoly on being offended or expressing righteous indignation?

I graduated from a very conservative Catholic law school in the mid-West.

Well, there’s your problem right there. Little wonder that you do not agree with the student body’s treatment of her.

If you not equally upset by a straight bigot who only purpose for existing is to deny civil-rights to minority groups, then you obviously were not listening. Advocating treating LGBT people like criminals is not free speech. It’s provacatove and incites violence toward us.

Do you also feel that Hitler and the Germans were just exercising their right to free speech on Krystal Nacht as well?

I don’t give a rat’s-pitooey what her credentials are. She’s still over the top and should be shouted down, just like SM, Butty-Barb and youcanthandlethetruth and other such homophobes.

Some debates aren’t healthy or appropriate in an academic setting because the arguments are so poor (unsound and invalid) and contemptible, that they are completely destructive; and far from enriching the collegial environment, contaminate it by increasing hostilities and the potential for violence.

I couldn’t agree more with you, Tank.

And that is also true on this site, as well, especially as relates to people like SM, Butty-Barb and the reincarnated YesonProp8, cum youcanthandlethetruth.

anti-christian opinion = fair comment.

Absolutely, especially when when the Christians began slinging the shit first. Do you expect that we should just duck and say thank you, could you sling some more, please?

anti-homosexual opinion = hate speech

That’s how this shit all got started, isn’t it? You throw rocks at people and you can bet your sweet life, they will throw rocks back at you.

That the way it’s always been and that’s the way it will always be until you’ll decide to stop throwing rocks. And until you do, we will keep defending ourselves.

There is no law saying we must take this shit from you Christers in case you haven’t noticed.